Bug#228673: sablevm-test-suite_0.1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 12:08:54PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> I also though about it before uploading, but I think it was the cleanest way
> to do it, mainly because:
> - if I wanted the test suite to be in SableVM package then it has to be compiled
> during the build (and for each build separately) as I cannot include binary .classes,
It would be a Arch:all package so buildd wouldn't build it and it only
builds once.
> - compilation requires not only javac (on which SableVM currently doesn't build-depend,
> but let's say it wouldn't be that big problem), but also jasmin-sable (it's jasmin
> java assembler maintained by sable group, as the original author is not interested
> in it anymore)
> - jasmin is packaged as a .deb and is written in java, so it Depends: on a JVM.
> So it would mean that to compile SableVM JVM package - I would already need to have
> a running JVM, which is kinda sick. Or I would need to include jasmin source into
> SableVM source and compile jasmin (which compilation btw. also requires working JVM),
> which I percieve as an insane idea.
> And after all
These two can be combined. That is have the orig.tar.gz for SableVM contains
upstream/
sablevm
jasmin
test
Then one source can build all of these packages - it makes build-depends
simpler. All of these are downloaded from the SableVM website anyway.
> - there's nothing in this package that makes it very SableVM
> specific. Yes, it has been created w/ SableVM in mind, it is able to *also* test
> some SableVM-specific quirks, but it's just like many manual pages, which have been
> written by Debian Developers, for Debian, "but may be used by others".
>
> Probably I should have included this explanation before uploading the package
> (but where?). In any case the decision to create new package wasn't dictated by
> "let's just cut it into pieces" (the original, first-thought was to make it part
> of SableVM tarball) but rather by technical (and yes, also the taste-driven
> like: cleanness, saneness) reasons, mentioned above.
>
> Therefore I wanted to ask for reevaluation of this rejection.
OR,
we can add a new Arch:all package. It makes sense to me either way, but
I think it might be "cleaner" if all of these Sable stuff got combined
in one big source especially since jasmin doesn't seems to be changing that
often (the upstream tar ball has most of the sources dated to 2001).
I don't make the decission to accept or reject packages though :)
- Adam
Reply to: